I can tell you from personal experience that in California process is NOT being served. (not sure I've got my terms right, but I assume you get the idea.)
A few years ago I was named on state child support forms as the father of a child by a woman whom I had briefly dated. I don't care to go into all the details, but I could not have been the father. This gal was sleeping around, and I was the guy who had a few bucks that she thought she could get her hands on.
The *first* thing I knew about it was when my employer and I separately received garnishment notices.
I immediately went down to the state office and tried to discuss this with someone. To find out what rights I had, etc.
The case worker came out into the lobby and essentially treated me like a criminal who might be there to shoot her. She wouldn't tell me anything. Nothing at all.
The bottom line as far as she was concerned was that my employer had to comply with the garnishment order. Period. End of story.
This ultimately reached an acceptable conclusion -- but it wasn't because of the way the state currently deals with the issue. They assume whatever male is named by the woman on the forms *is* in fact the father. They offer no notice of rights or ready avenue for appeal or anything like that. It is an automatic default judgement. All the woman needs to do is fill out the forms, and the system takes it from there.
My impression is that the real goal of this is to minimize the number of single mothers who are collecting welfare payments from the state. Fair enough -- but this is *way* too heavy handed. There is no thought whatsoever given to what the truth is. They don't care.